dude i meant like current 15 year old hardware not 25 year old hardware. and yes i set the grapics lower it didn't fix my loading problem. Idk what it was i played with everything i could.

I was posting a reply on this point earlier, but accidentally clicked the back button on my mouse (which I *never* use anyway) and it all vanished.

Your best bet for an AGP graphics card is to look on eBay for second hand ones. Go for a Radeon 9800 Pro. rockz called them a "decent budget card when they debuted", but actually the 98Pro was the top of the line card that cost $400 US when it came out. I know, I bought one. They really crapped over everything nVidia had at the time (steer clear of any 5000-series Geforce card) and were the basis for ATi's ascendency in the graphics market. ATi also put out most of their x-- series and a few of their x1-- series cards in AGP form. x600 or higher should be sufficient for your purposes. I don't know too much about nVidia cards of the 6000 or 7000 generation, though, so can't give you advice there.

In general avoid any parts that have a 2, 3 or 4 as the 2nd digit in the number range, eg 5200, 9300, 6300, x300, x1300 are all rubbish for a gamer. The next cards up aren't very much more expensive, and the sad thing is that many people get suckered into buying the budget parts thinking that they'll work well, when really they don't. That MX400 card you've got is pretty much the same equivalent there.

Ex loves to overexaggerate how bad a system is(similar to how he overexaggerates how bad a Melee map is), and while I'd agree with him most of the time, I'd say he's definitely more of a hardware guy, and if he can't fix it with hardware or a complete reformat, he won't bother, even when a few software tweaks could fix it up, Ex is more of a "ah, it doesn't work, might as well start all over" kinda guy, not that there's anything wrong with that, but in the case of computers it often puts systems that could continue being used to waste.

Cobb, there are still plenty of cards out that fit an AGP slot, although I don't know what AGP version you've got, but the GeForce 7800 GS will go into AGP slots if they're new enough, and that's pretty far above the minimum requirements. No, you won't be playing it on the highest settings, but you should be able to at least run the game without many problems.

Now, to killer, Ex is right in your case, you have a pitiful amount of RAM that's not worth upgrading, and you don't even have a decent motherboard with more than two slots to allow you to easily upgrade it, when it comes to gaming or other high-end activities, that computer is dead, but with a few tweaks you can get it at least back to a decent condition for other work. For your drivers, check out a few of these driver pack CDs, they tend to have the drivers for basically every computer I work on, once you have your drivers installed, try to clean up your startup, clearing up as much RAM as you can, there are only 15 processes that should be running on a fresh XP SP3 install:


First thing to do is clear out your startup with msconfig, which if you're on a fresh install there should only be one or two programs to clean out, second thing is to configure your services for your needs, this takes a bit longer, but does free up quite a bit of memory. I would recommend reading the information on BlackViper's website to help decide how each service should be configured in services.msc.

It won't be wonerful when you're done, but it should at least be an okay work computer.

I'm not sure who started calling it a GeForce4 MX. The picture clearly says it is a GeForce4 Ti. Being the lowest GeForce4 Ti, the 4200, it is still probably at least twice as fast as the fastest GeForce4 MX. Regardless, it is still below the minimum stated for SC2, though.

Upgrading that computer to meet the SC2 requirements may cost up to $100, but probably not more if you don't get too much more than you need or can use. How many watts is the power supply?

No one "started calling it a GeForce4 MX".

DavidJCobb has a GeForce4 MX.
killer_sss has a GeForce 4200 ti.

Two different graphics cards owned by two different people are being discussed in this thread.

I have a GeForce 6300 and that's not good enough to run SCII smoothly at its lowest graphics...
Even Tho my computer is a 2.5 gb dual core ... 2.0 ghz and all that jazz...

*sigh*.....
I need to buy a new graphics card..
Anyone know the current prices of the Geforce 9000 series? Or d'you think it's more practical to go for a 7000 or 8000 series?

Yeah, if your computer is old enough that it has no PCIe slots, you pretty much need a new one to play sc2.

Assuming you have a 350watt power supply and pci-e slot.
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130525

You're mad that you can't play a game made in 2010 on a computer made in 2003 because you said something along the lines of the fact that you can play a game made in 2000 on a computer made in 1995. Do you really not see the ridiculousness of that statement?

No, that's not true at all. All of the minimum specs for SC2 can be met on a computer that only has an AGP slot, provided that slot is AGP 8x. Notice that Blizzard specifically list the GFX card as 9800 Pro, which was an AGP 8x card.

Computers with only 1-2x AGP slots wont cut it, and computers of the vintage that have 4x slots are borderline, but any computer with an x8 slot could be upgraded sufficiently to run SC2. However the price for those older parts (especially RAM) is quite high, so building a new computer from scratch would end up being more cost effective in the long run, if a little more expensive in total (but then you also get to keep your old computer intact).

thnx lanth ><" I missed your post

Johnny, I think we discussed this before but I can't remember, in terms of GF 8/9 series and then HD 4/5 series, what is a 220 on par with? And the 240?

@Falk
You're completely right Falk, and I think we all have our preferences and style. The way I look at it, putting money into a dead end system is like putting a new engine in a shit clunker 1000$ car, it just doesn't make sense. I feel like if I'm going to recommend to someone that they spend an amount on their computer, I don't want my recommendation not to cut it a year or two later because I kept it cheap with their old outdated platform. Its simply a matter of 'If you're going to spend the money, do it right the first time' in the way I look at it. I guess it isn't the most economical way to do it, but its just how I feel about it.

It's like putting a $70 engine into a $1000 car that you bought 5 years ago, you mean. If the $70 engine works the way it's supposed to, then sure. You're going to get your $70 out of it, that's for sure.

The 250 is an 8800 rebrand. I'd put the 220 at or around the 8500, and the 240 at or around the 9600, but that's without looking at any charts.

nothing! ATI STILL SUCKS! The 4/5 are power suckers and not green. Urine did not post his power supply so I am going with low power. (I REALLY doubt that urine has min 400W).

As if I'd ever care about power consumption. I was just asking what cards they compare to in terms of gaming power.

And if you check, the 5000 series actually have some really nice power consumption numbers. I know the 4000 series fucked up in that regard.

You haven't heard of the new Easy Fermi Oven, Johnny? 295 TDP. The 5970 (2 GPUs) has a TDP of 294. ATi is more efficient than nVidia at all levels.

How can you compare gaming power without regarding power consumption? Since the 220 is the best card under 400watt it will have the best.
You cannot use most of the 4/5 series because most of them go over 400watt. (thus I rate them 0 since you cannot use them)

O really? Fermi is not out yet but I say the TDP is lower than that. All levels? (but ati has no physics engine? )

The 5000 series also goes into a low power mode when not in heavy use - something like 15 watts per GPU, IIRC, or it may have been 15 watts per GPU on 57xx and 30 watts per GPU on 58xx.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-final-specs--pricing-revealed/8635.html
Looks like it's 250, not 295. It still has some SERIOUS heat, like that of a dual GPU.

Okay, let's grab the 220. TDP of 58. The 5570 has a TDP of 43.
Well wouldn't you know it? Outperforms the 220 by a bunch, and the 4670 has a TDP of 59, which also outperforms the 220. Now for pricing:
$52 for the 220 GT
$62 for the 4670
$65 for the 5570

Now obviously, the 220 is cheaper, but, you get what you pay for, right? Oh wait, the 4650 is $42, and is about the same as the 220 GT, and has a TDP of 48. I will say this, the 220 fills the gap between the 4670 and the 4650 nicely, both in price and performance. However, when you can get 50% performance for $13, plus save money on power consumption, you spend the extra money.

Obviously there are some areas where nvidia cards fill the gaps in pricing. However, the gaps are generally small, and you get more performance per watt with ATi than nVidia in all the cards I've shown you. Also, while I'm not entirely certain of the data, my x1950 pro shouldn't use more than 65 W. I would put its performance somewhere along the lines of the 220, 4670, and it's 3 years old.

Your only taking in the account of the GPU chipset. For the whole card Ati takes more power. (which is why the 220/240 is the best for under 400 watts)
The 5570 needs min 400 watts while the 220/240 only needs min 350 watts. and 240>5570 for less power.